' ASLAM RIAZ Hussamat, J.-Allah Ditta petitioner seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 11th of March 1979 dismissing his S. A.
0. In a rent matter.
' The facts briefly are that Shahzadi Bilqis and Shahzadi Surraya respondents filed an application for the ejectment of Allah Ditta petitioner-tenant from a shop and Chabutara which had been let out to him. The grounds taken were, (i) default in payment of rent from 1-6-1972 to 28-2-1974 and
(ii) bona fide requirement for demolishing and reconstructing the building for which they had already obtained sanction from the relevant authority. Allah Ditta was ordered to be ejected by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 19th. Of June 1976. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 11th of January 1979. He, thereupon, filed an S. A.
0. (No, 139 of 1979) before the High Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 11th of March, 1979.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner urged firstly that he had not defaulted in payment of rent ; that he had been depositing the rent in the treasury and the only fault found with the same by the learned Rent Controller was that the name of respondent landladies was not mentioned therein.
The counsel attempted to argue that the petitioner had not mentioned the names of the landladies because the relevant Form did not contain any column for that purpose. We have examined the Challan Form and find that this contention is not correct. The omission to mention the names of the persons on whose behalf the rent was being deposited appears to be deliberate and the deposit of the money by the petitioner in the treasury cannot be regarded as lawful tender of the rent. The learned Courts below were, therefore, justified in holding that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent.
' It was contended secondly that the plea of the respondents landladies that the shop is sought to be vacated for reconstruction is not bona fide because it has not been proved that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required reconstruction. We feel that the learned High Court Judge was justified in repelling this contention. It is not necessary that a building must be so old and dilapidated that it is about to fall down before the landlord can be considered justified in wanting to demolish and B reconstruct it. Every person has the right to improve his property utilize the land on which the building is constructed in the best and most profitable manner and erect a now building if the old building is outdated although it might yet be habitated or sufficiently strong to last for another few years. The mere fact that the landlord is willing to demolish the old building and invest a large amount of money in constructing a new one, notwithstanding the tremendous increase in the cost of construction, and the fact that he is willing to undergo imprisonment on his failure to demolish the building or to reconstruct it within a specified period is sufficient to establish his bona fides.
' In this view of the matter we feel that the petition has no merit and is dismissed as such.